So according to The New York Times, President Bush has notified members of Congress that he has decided that a law requiring that Homeland Security reports be sent to Congress "without any prior comment or amendment" from administration officials doesn't actually apply to him. It must mean some other country's administration.

WASHINGTON ó The Bush administration has informed Congress that it is bypassing a law intended to forbid political interference with reports to lawmakers by the Department of Homeland Security.

The August 2007 law requires the agencyís chief privacy officer to report each year about Homeland Security activities that affect privacy, and requires that the reports be submitted directly to Congress ďwithout any prior comment or amendmentĒ by superiors at the department or the White House.

But newly disclosed documents show that the Justice Department issued a legal opinion last January questioning the basis for that restriction, and that Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, later advised Congress that the administration would not ďapply this provision strictlyĒ because it infringed on the presidentís powers.

Several members of Congress reacted with outrage to the administrationís claim, which was detailed in a memorandum posted this week on the Web site of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the move ďunconstitutional.Ē He said Mr. Bush should have vetoed the bill if he did not like the provision, and compared the situation to Mr. Bushís frequent use of signing statements to reserve a right to bypass newly enacted laws.

ďThis is a dictatorial, after-the-fact pronouncement by him in line with a lot of other cherry-picking heís done on the signing statements,Ē Mr. Specter said in a telephone interview. He added, ďTo put it differently, I donít like it worth a damn.Ē

Hey, I have an idea! Maybe Congress can retroactively authorize this like it did the illegal wiretapping! Then there's no problem, right?

"W" is fast becoming irrelevant. His party's nominee is now savaging the last 8 years, a fair number of pretty prominent Republicans (some his former aides) are endorsing Obama, and the Congressional Candidates are running away from him. I doubt right now, except as fodder for Obama, anyone cares.

Probably for the Republican party the best outcome is to get torched and lose everything big. If the Dems do what Dems normally do when in power and the Republicans go through the bloodbath they must to regain their center, in four years things will be much different.

If the Dems actually govern and not just rule, and the Palin conservatives win the party, the Republicans will be out in the cold for a long time. This is what both sides are focused on now, not "W" exerting his perceived authority.

Several members of Congress reacted with outrage to the administrationís claim, which was detailed in a memorandum posted this week on the Web site of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.

So...this document is from January and was posted on the website...well, The Times says this week. I buy that since right now we can access a Google cache from 10/20 and it ain't THERE. I also have a "modified date" on the PDF of 10/22, so let's assume it was posted Wednesday.

So some time between Wednesday and Friday, somebody let the Times know about it (why?), leading to this story in today's paper.

I guess my point is: ummmm, actually, what IS the point of this thread again? I mean, I have my standard theory when TheBucsFan is behind post #1 (he wants America to vote for Nader!) but surely there's something I'm missing.

DrDirt, I've let a point of yours go but I plan on starting another thread IMMEDIATELY to deal with it.

Originally posted by CRZI guess my point is: ummmm, actually, what IS the point of this thread again? I mean, I have my standard theory when TheBucsFan is behind post #1 (he wants America to vote for Nader!) but surely there's something I'm missing.

I don't give a shit if people vote for Nader. I just want people to stop voting for people who have created an environment in which the president can openly tell Congress he's circumventing a law meant to apply specifically to the president and get away with it.

This group includes Obama, McCain and virtually all the leaders of their respective parties.

Originally posted by CRZI guess my point is: ummmm, actually, what IS the point of this thread again? I mean, I have my standard theory when TheBucsFan is behind post #1 (he wants America to vote for Nader!) but surely there's something I'm missing.

I don't give a shit if people vote for Nader. I just want people to stop voting for people who have created an environment in which the president can openly tell Congress he's circumventing a law meant to apply specifically to the president and get away with it.

This group includes Obama, McCain and virtually all the leaders of their respective parties.

Originally posted by CRZThis is a fun exercise in academics but seriously...people who are trying to keep their jobs, pay their bills, raise their families? This is the sort of thing that is MILES below their radar.

This is true. I understand why "presidential input into Homeland Security department reports" wouldn't be at the top of a voter's priorities. That said, this is not an isolated incident.

I don't know why someone would trust either Barack Obama or John McCain given that both have a track record of supporting this kind of thing. I think it makes it obvious they don't have their focus on the best interests of Americans at large.

And I personally don't think job security is worth granting the president the kinds of authority Bush and Congress have repeatedly worked together to give to that office, but I know most people would probably disagree with that. I also have the luxury of having no children, being relatively debt free, etc.

That said, I don't see millions of people losing their jobs under a President Nader (not gonna happen, I know, so spare me), so I don't see that as a reason to continue voting for the Democrats and Republicans. I don't know enough about Bob Barr and other top third-party candidates to speak on them.

I voted for Nader in the last two elections even though I am a registered Democrat. I knew he wouldn't win but I couldn't stomach voting for Gore, Kerry, or Bush.

Zed is right in that people have other more immediate and pressing issues on their minds. Many who used to be outraged are just numb now as this is a daily occurence under the present administration.

And Zed's point re us, the voters is also correct. We bear a great deal of responsibility for this mess as this is the government we elected.

And while Obama and McCain are hardly angels in this BucsFan, have they supported it or just not done enough to stop it. Remember when to question the administration's actions a while back re the "war on terror" was tantamount to treason at worst and unamerican at best.

And finally, while I voted for Nader, I thought he was a bit out there.

Originally posted by CRZAlso, voters. But then, you've made your opinion of voters pretty clear (albeit after some coaxing ;-) ).

I forgot to respond to this.

I don't have an opinion on voters as a whole, except that I think they are heavily influenced by the mainstream American media - and understandably so. It's the mainstream media - which continues to convince people there are only two options, thereby creating a situation in which there are only two realistic options - that I have an incredibly low opinion of.

Originally posted by DrDirtAnd while Obama and McCain are hardly angels in this BucsFan, have they supported it or just not done enough to stop it. Remember when to question the administration's actions a while back re the "war on terror" was tantamount to treason at worst and unamerican at best.

This depends on what "it" is. Obama voted to retroactively authorize Bush's wiretapping. He voted to extend the PATRIOT Act. He continues to act as if the "war on terror" has a shred of credibility or worthwhile purpose in its current form. I haven't seen him do anything to oppose this abuse of power on Bush's part, let alone actually try and stop it. Same for McCain.

I know about the "unamerican" bullshit - that doesn't make it right. Obama was speaking out against invading Iraq in 2002, and he wasn't hanged for it. Of course, once he got to Congress he immediately began supporting the indefinite occupation of Iraq, so maybe that helped. Regardless, I don't see public backlash as a good enough reason to refuse to stand up against something a person thinks is wrong. Hell, that's when it's most important that someone stands up against it.

The Bush Administration couldn't find something using the Dewey decimal system at the library, would lose in a race against a mouse in a maze over a peice of cheese, and with all the brand new Department of Homeland Security and other techniques that have come into play in the last eight years I doubt they could find a box of dinky-doodles not to mention Bin Laden. I know that the argument is that what's going on is an infraction upon the very Constitution, but especially as a Nader man TheBucsFan is, you could site the waste of money it's all turning out to be. This waste of money puts the country in debt, bad things start happening, and it all trickles down to the everyman and everywoman.

"Laugh and the world laughs with you. Frown and the world laughs at you."-Me.

This is like a defense lawyer arguing that though his client committed a murder, just because O.J. got off, this killer should too. The problem with you Americans is that you keep electing crappy presidents on both sides of the aisle.